POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[Drew S.]

I was listening to Mark Thompson on Make it Plain (XM) coming in this morning and he was saying the same thing, so I'll take you seriously that this is a common worry for Democratic moderates.

In my opinion, it is a greatly exaggerated issue. I am not sold on the thesis that a lot of Democrats stayed away from Hillary because she was toxic, but even if they did she no longer matters and the negatives that surrounded her are not operant going forward. There will be a spectrum of Democratic candidates from corporate-friendly to worker-friendly, and obviously moderates will prefer the former and liberals the latter during the nomination phase. But they will all be relatively near the midpoint of the spectrum. Hillary and Bernie were outliers at each extreme so there was bound to be an issue knitting the party together. That chasm won't repeat. Corey Booker is say +4 corporate and, well frankly there's really nobody out there on the pro-worker side -- the best we have is a Franken at around the midpoint. So we'll be patching a 4-point gap, not a 20-point gap.

If you are worried that the Bernie insults of Hillary were demoralizing then I encourage you to also self-examine and see that your insults of liberals are likewise counterproductive if the goal is a united party.

I saw you reference her yesterday and didn't get the chance to ask, but what do you make of the Kamala Harris hype?

[ScoobyDoo]

I saw you reference her yesterday and didn't get the chance to ask, but what do you make of the Kamala Harris hype?

She'll never win. No woman will.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I saw you reference her yesterday and didn't get the chance to ask, but what do you make of the Kamala Harris hype?

Small sample size so far. I like her ambition and intelligence. I like that she was aggressive during the Sessions hearings. She's "Obama with Boobs" (and I like boobs) and that is my explanation for the hype.

On the downside she has a corporate streak and, well, she's Obama with boobs: she'll sell out the hindmost to court the fat wallet donors. She's not going to reverse the rush to lethal inequality in any significant way; she'll nibble around the edges or possibly even exacerbate it like every Democrat since JFK.

Kamala Harris vs Gavin Newsom is shaping up to be a qualifier for the nomination frontrunner. I'm happy with that -- they seem like solid representatives of the moderate and liberal wings, respectively. They're both smart and ruthless campaigners and they're both telegenic and charismatic which is good for attracting the lofos. And they're both under 900 years old, which is a nice change for the Methuselah Party.

I am cautiously optimistic. Rover is gonna LOVE her.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Wait, you are "outraged" over the fact that ESPN is allegedly trying to be sensitive to both some viewers and one of it's broadcasters?

Wow.

It's REALLY funny how people get so upset over simple things like "insulting your intelligence" but somehow have difficulty understanding that people get offended by symbols of slavery and opression.

What's up with that?

Is THAT the only reason people are up in arms over this? That's it?

Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.

[CLS]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Anybody else remember the commercial in which a white guy crashes the Lee Family Reunion because they were serving Bud Light?

"You're Chung's oldest son?"
"Yes!"
"You look a lot like him"

We could laugh about it then ...

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

May just be random drift but for the first time consecutive daily Gallup polls show Trump at -24% or worse.

In other polling, Mitch McConnell is currently at 79% disapproval in Kentucky, so Trump's brickbats are at least finding one target. Jeff Flake beware.

[Drew S.]

Small sample size so far. I like her ambition and intelligence. I like that she was aggressive during the Sessions hearings. She's "Obama with Boobs" (and I like boobs) and that is my explanation for the hype.

On the downside she has a corporate streak and, well, she's Obama with boobs: she'll sell out the hindmost to court the fat wallet donors. She's not going to reverse the rush to lethal inequality in any significant way; she'll nibble around the edges or possibly even exacerbate it like every Democrat since JFK.

Kamala Harris vs Gavin Newsom is shaping up to be a qualifier for the nomination frontrunner. I'm happy with that -- they seem like solid representatives of the moderate and liberal wings, respectively. They're both smart and ruthless campaigners and they're both telegenic and charismatic which is good for attracting the lofos. And they're both under 900 years old, which is a nice change for the Methuselah Party.

I am cautiously optimistic. Rover is gonna LOVE her.

Is she anywhere close to as smart as Obama? He had degrees from two Ivy League schools. It seems like she is getting hyped based on her identity more than anything else.

I really think Terry McAullife is your guy. If it is him versus Trump no way he loses. I know Rover probably likes him more than you, but I'm sure you would take him over the current occupant of the White House.

[ScoobyDoo]

Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.

And pretty accurate.

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

This is the key. Bannon is an execrable human being, but he does understand how the game is played. He's Roger Ailes without the, um, charm?

I'd say he's Roger Ailes but with more syphilis and cirrhosis of the liver.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Is she anywhere close to as smart as Obama? He had degrees from two Ivy League schools. It seems like she is getting hyped based on her identity more than anything else.

I really think Terry McAullife is your guy. If it is him versus Trump no way he loses. I know Rover probably likes him more than you, but I'm sure you would take him over the current occupant of the White House.

Terry McAuliffe is terrible. What he lacks in political courage he more than makes worse with poor political instincts and a complete lack of charisma. He also just smells like he has a ton of financial misconduct in his past. Early on in the Cafe's existence somebody suggested I was Terry McAuliffe (Catholic New Yorker, pro-Carter, Democrat and over-the-top Notre Dame football fan). I don't think I've ever felt more insulted.

I don't know how smart Harris is. Her academic pedigree is weak and she was a DA, both of which suggest mediocrity. Like Obama she is a hardcore political animal and scheming opportunist -- I think of her as Selina Meyer. We certainly wouldn't be getting the intellectual-professorial Obama, but that's a plus -- Pete Palooka hates intelligence (c.f. Dukakis, M.).

[unofan]

I really think Terry McAullife is your guy.

Seriously, you don't have to keep proving yourself to be a fool.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.

Deadspin with the apt headline.

What would have been nothing but a quirky screengrab (or more likely nothing—no one was going to notice, and even if they did they wouldn’t have cared, and even if they pretended to care it would have been forgotten by kickoff) is now a full-blown media controversy in the right-wing chudosphere, and ESPN finds itself rightly criticized by everyone on all sides of the political spectrum.

And this, which are words for the ages:

true corporate cowardice requires a bland, compulsive aversion to controversy so strong that it loses touch with reality.

And, finally, this, which is so on point Drew and Fish got a phantom heat flash the instant they were published:

This type of performative leftism is red meat for, among others, the disingenuous right, whose worldview (and ability to sell gold and boner pills to old people) collapses unless it can portray all activism as performative.

[Drew S.]

Seriously, you don't have to keep proving yourself to be a fool.

What did you think of Trump's odds leading up to the election? It's important to leave your personal views out of who has the best chance. McAullife would play well in a lot of the swing states where the election will be won or lost.

[Drew S.]

Terry McAuliffe is terrible. What he lacks in political courage he more than makes worse with poor political instincts and a complete lack of charisma. He also just smells like he has a ton of financial misconduct in his past. Early on in the Cafe's existence somebody suggested I was Terry McAuliffe (Catholic New Yorker, pro-Carter, Democrat and over-the-top Notre Dame football fan). I don't think I've ever felt more insulted.

I don't know how smart Harris is. Her academic pedigree is weak and she was a DA, both of which suggest mediocrity. Like Obama she is a hardcore political animal and scheming opportunist -- I think of her as Selina Meyer. We certainly wouldn't be getting the intellectual-professorial Obama, but that's a plus -- Pete Palooka hates intelligence (c.f. Dukakis, M.).

I could see democrats trying to make Harris be Obama the same way they tried to make Hillary be Bill. It would be a big mistake to go down that road again in my humble opinion.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I could see democrats trying to make Harris be Obama the same way they tried to make Hillary be Bill. It would be a big mistake to go down that road again in my humble opinion.

That's a misreading of what happened with Hillary. They didn't try to cast her as Bill, and that was a problem. You have to realize that outside the Fox Bubble everybody still loves Bill. They just loathed Hillary.

In any case, Democrats don't have problems* with Obama -- it was only the righty loons who went apesh-t whenever they saw his picture, as they would again with Harris because oh I can't imagine why.

* There's disappointment of course that he wussed out on the wars and Gitmo. But weight for age he was still the most successful president since Eisenhower and that despite being faced by a Congress of roid rage lunatics hurling feces at him 24/7.